Author Topic: 6 Feb 12: Charges laid against CIC officer  (Read 66596 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 413,865
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,829
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: 6 Feb 12: Charges laid against CIC officer
« Reply #50 on: December 07, 2012, 09:35:44 »
Sorry. Not really sure. It shouldn't take an act of parliament as the commission comes from the Queen (Governor General). My view was that the commission (which in effect is an appointment to be her officer in the CF) ran in tandem with service with the forces and a dismissal by a court martial terminated the commission as well. I'm not sure that there is any formal process to strip someone of their commission although I remember in the Williams case apparently his commissioning scroll was to be shredded and his medals cut up.
From DND's news release on the Williams situation linked earlier in the thread (also attached if link doesn't work) - highlights mine....
Quote
Upon the recommendation of General Walt Natynczyk, Chief of the Defence Staff, His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada, has signed the documents revoking the commission of Russell Williams and approved his release from the Canadian Forces (CF).

(....)

The governor general is commander-in-chief of Canada. As such, the governor general plays a major role in recognizing the importance of Canada’s military at home and abroad. Among these duties, the governor general signs Commissioning Scrolls. Every officer, for the discharge of his or her duties, holds a commission granted by the governor general on behalf of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and countersigned by the Minister of National Defence.  Along with the authority to grant such commissions is the authority of the governor general to revoke them.
What process leads up to the CDS recommendation?  No clue, but happy to know more from those who do.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 09:38:53 by milnews.ca »
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 172,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,886
Re: 6 Feb 12: Charges laid against CIC officer
« Reply #51 on: December 07, 2012, 16:04:03 »
From DND's news release on the Williams situation linked earlier in the thread (also attached if link doesn't work) - highlights mine....What process leads up to the CDS recommendation?  No clue, but happy to know more from those who do.

The Governor General revokes commissions quite often, regularly in fact, though it is likely a pro forma function.  As FJAG mentioned above, an officer holds a commission in tandem with his service in the CF (or the RCMP or CCG for those officers who hold commissions in those organizations).  When an officer releases (either compulsorily or voluntarily) from the CF, his commission is revoked.  While the QR&Os states that the authority to release a commissioned officer rests with the Governor General, the administrative processing (and approval)  happens within the CF/DND.  Approval authorities for release are (or had been during my time in) delegated to various levels depending on the rank level and type of release.  I assume that the CDS very publically sent the recommendation for release (and concurrent revocation of commission) to the GG because of the optics involved in the Williams case.

A while back, I received notice that I had been released from the Supp Res.  I was understandably confused as I had not reached either the CRA or the ten years of inactive service deadline that the Supp Res uses as the reason for release.  When I contacted them to question their action, I found out that they had no record of my Primary Res service and were going on the end date of my Reg F service.  It seemed that no one talks to the Supp Res.  Trying to correct this became an issue as they told me that "they had already sent my name (along with the other ones for that month) to the Governor General for notification of release and cancelling my commission".  What they do at Government House with such information I do not know, but no one asked for my scroll back.
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline ArmySailor

  • :D
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 29,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 400
  • Living for the good times....
Re: 6 Feb 12: Charges laid against CIC officer
« Reply #52 on: December 07, 2012, 16:38:50 »
Fair enough. I just didn't notice you mentioning anything about the victims or the challenges they're facing.

I understand how being a member of the unit you can't really comment. Cheers.

There's a gag order identifying anything about them. Thus, I can't(and wont) touch that without a ten-foot pole.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 16:41:43 by ArmySailor »

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 413,865
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,829
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: 6 Feb 12: Charges laid against CIC officer
« Reply #53 on: December 07, 2012, 16:40:20 »
The Governor General revokes commissions quite often, regularly in fact, though it is likely a pro forma function.  As FJAG mentioned above, an officer holds a commission in tandem with his service in the CF (or the RCMP or CCG for those officers who hold commissions in those organizations).  When an officer releases (either compulsorily or voluntarily) from the CF, his commission is revoked.  While the QR&Os states that the authority to release a commissioned officer rests with the Governor General, the administrative processing (and approval)  happens within the CF/DND.  Approval authorities for release are (or had been during my time in) delegated to various levels depending on the rank level and type of release.  I assume that the CDS very publically sent the recommendation for release (and concurrent revocation of commission) to the GG because of the optics involved in the Williams case.

A while back, I received notice that I had been released from the Supp Res.  I was understandably confused as I had not reached either the CRA or the ten years of inactive service deadline that the Supp Res uses as the reason for release.  When I contacted them to question their action, I found out that they had no record of my Primary Res service and were going on the end date of my Reg F service.  It seemed that no one talks to the Supp Res.  Trying to correct this became an issue as they told me that "they had already sent my name (along with the other ones for that month) to the Governor General for notification of release and cancelling my commission".  What they do at Government House with such information I do not know, but no one asked for my scroll back.
Thanks for the rest of the story - much appreciated.
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline gwp

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 317
Re: Military Police lay charges against a member of the CIC
« Reply #54 on: January 20, 2013, 03:16:31 »
Unfortunately youth organisations are ripe with people like this. I wonder how many days this member served at one of the national camps? I would LOVE to see the media jump onboard and do some investigative journalism into this organisation. Parents think their kids are heading off with "military men and women" when infact their children are being sent off with people with less than 20 days training as officers of the CF. Maybe the media could also look into how much we fund this program; and why must the nation pay for this youth organisation while others seem to do just fine internally. Maybe look at how much money is paid out to people who have made a full federally paid career as a cadet officer. Look how many cadet officers are making over 100,000 to do not much at all.
Parents deserve to know; most don't know the difference.

I am little late in my response to this rant but it may be instructive to know that the most common thing that happens in this regard in the cadet organization is the cadet that does not want to go home from summer training.  He or she is hiding in a shower, hiding in a locker, they do not want to get on the bus to go home .... because they have had two, three, or six weeks of safety .. they have made friends, been well fed, had great fun, learned stuff .. they have been exposed to the harrassement breifing and perhaps discussed their life with other cadets.  They have come to understand that part of their life does not have to be the way it is and going home puts them in harms way as someone in their home is doing them evil.  There are about a dozen of such cases every year. The cadet organization empowers young people to report untoward behaviour.  The mistreatment of young people is not a cadet organization problem.  It is a societal problem.


The revised Cadet Instructor Branch BOQ and Initial MOC Course involves 65 days of computer based DL and in house training. 
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 03:27:37 by gwp »

Offline Scott

    - apparently an antagonist.

  • Likes fire and loud noises.
  • Chief of Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 200,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,965
  • El Scorcho Diablo
Re: Military Police lay charges against a member of the CIC
« Reply #55 on: January 20, 2013, 03:29:27 »
I am little late in my response to this rant but it may be instructive to know that the most common thing that happens in this regard in the cadet organization is the cadet that does not want to go home from summer training.  He or she is hiding in a shower, hiding in a locker, they do not want to get on the bus to go home .... because they have had two, three, or six weeks of safety .. they have made friends, been well fed, had great fun, learned stuff .. they have been exposed to the harrassement breifing and perhaps discussed their life with other cadets.  They have come to understand that part of their life does not have to be the way it is and going home puts them in harms way as someone in their home is doing them evil.  There are about a dozen of such cases every year. The cadet organization empowers young people to report untoward behaviour.  The mistreatment of young people is not a cadet organization problem.  It is a societal problem.

Only a year late, but fine. Plenty of other people already rebutted the statement you went after, and you did notice where I had said enough was enough, right?

No one here is stupid. We know hockey coaches, Scout leaders, whatever, have it in them to do this. It's not the organization they belong to that sees them short circuit in such a manner, it's down to the individual. What the organization does, on the other hand, to root this crap out and see the perverts punished, is another thing altogether.

Be nice for no reason.

Offline Pusser

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 86,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,822
Re: 6 Feb 12: Charges laid against CIC officer
« Reply #56 on: June 19, 2013, 10:31:59 »
The Governor General revokes commissions quite often, regularly in fact, though it is likely a pro forma function.  As FJAG mentioned above, an officer holds a commission in tandem with his service in the CF (or the RCMP or CCG for those officers who hold commissions in those organizations).  When an officer releases (either compulsorily or voluntarily) from the CF, his commission is revoked.  While the QR&Os states that the authority to release a commissioned officer rests with the Governor General, the administrative processing (and approval)  happens within the CF/DND.  Approval authorities for release are (or had been during my time in) delegated to various levels depending on the rank level and type of release.  I assume that the CDS very publically sent the recommendation for release (and concurrent revocation of commission) to the GG because of the optics involved in the Williams case.

A while back, I received notice that I had been released from the Supp Res.  I was understandably confused as I had not reached either the CRA or the ten years of inactive service deadline that the Supp Res uses as the reason for release.  When I contacted them to question their action, I found out that they had no record of my Primary Res service and were going on the end date of my Reg F service.  It seemed that no one talks to the Supp Res.  Trying to correct this became an issue as they told me that "they had already sent my name (along with the other ones for that month) to the Governor General for notification of release and cancelling my commission".  What they do at Government House with such information I do not know, but no one asked for my scroll back.

Sorry to chime in so late, but I just noticed this and had to speak up. Commissions are rarely if ever revoked.  In fact, Russell Williams is the only Canadian officer to ever have a commission revoked.  It's quite a process and folks actually had to look up the procedure when it was done!  There is a difference between being released from the CF and losing one's commission.  The two do not go hand in hand.  QR&O 15.09 describes the use of rank after release.  If one can retain one's rank after release, then one can retain the commission that goes with it.  Whoever told you that your commission was being cancelled was simply wrong.
Sure, apes read Nietzsche.  They just don't understand it.